Back
1979 Supreme(Mad) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Ramanujam, J.
Vaiyapuri Paradesi Annadhana Chatram and Dharmasihapanam by fit person T.V. Lakshminarayana Reddiar, .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Guddalore. .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P. No. 2694 ot 1977.
Decided On : 31 January 1979
P.S. Ramachandran, for Petitioner.
K. Venkataswami, Additional Government Pleader, on behalf of Respondent.
A notification issued under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1961 does not change the character of a charitable trust, but only treats it as a specific endowment for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - CEILING AREA - CHARITABLE TRUST - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF TAMIL NADU ACT XIX OF 1961 - EFFECT - DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE TRUST - REMAINS A CHARITABLE TRUST - ENTITLED TO HOLD ONLY 5 STANDARD ACRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a charitable trust, challenged the fixation of its ceiling area at five standard acres under section 5 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act LVIll of 1961. The petitioner contended that it is a public trust of a religious nature and therefore exempt from the provisions of the Act. Alternatively, it argued that a notification issued by the State Government under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 converted it into a religious institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner-trust was purely of a charitable nature and not a religious trust of public nature. The notification issued under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1961 did not change the character of the trust, but only treated it as a specific endowment for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to hold only five standard acres as a public charitable institution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner-trust is a public trust of a religious nature and therefore exempt from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act LVIll of 1961? 2. Whether the notification issued by the State Government under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 converted the petitioner-trust into a religious institution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The document creating the trust showed that the charity to be performed was unconnected with the temple and its affairs. Therefore, the trust was purely of a charitable nature. 2. The notification issued under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XIX of 1961 did not change the character of the trust, but only treated it as a specific endowment for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner remained a charitable trust and was entitled to hold only five standard acres.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the fixation of its ceiling area at five standard acres.
2. The petitioner institution has an extent of 55-61 acres equivalent to 27.35 standard acres. Having regard to the fact that the ceiling area for a trust of a public charitable nature is five standard acres, an extent of 22.35 standard acres had been treated as surplus, and the institution has been asked to surrender the said extent as surplus lands.
3. The claim put forward by the institution was two-fold. Firstly it contended that it is a public trust of a religious nature and therefore it is entitled to be exempted from the provisions of section 2 of Tamil Nadu Act LVI1I of 1961. Secondly, even assuming that the trust, as originally created by the founder, was only a charitable trust, as a result of the Government notifying the same under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, it should be taken to be a religious institution. These contentions having been rejected and the petitioner having been held to be entitled to hold only five standard acres as a public charitable institution, it filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal questioning the decision of the Authorised Officer. The Tribunal also agreed with the view of the Authorised Officer and held that the institution is only of a charitable nature and not a public trust of a religious nature so as to get the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Act.
4. Before me Mr. P.S. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the documents under which the petitioner-trust has been created proceeds on the basis that it is purely of a charitable nature, still, having regard to the fact that the charity to be performed under the document is more or less in the precincts of the temple, it should be taken to be a religious trust. I have perused the document dated 8th April, 1897, Exhibit A 1, under which the trust has been created. That document says that certain properties have been purchased from public subscription and they have been endowed for the purpose of performing annadana dharmam that is feeding of the poor, in a place which is situate just opposite to Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathi temple. The document also provides for the method of selection of trustees and for the due administration of the said trust. But the document does not say that the poor feeding, which is the sole object of the trust, should be conducted in connection with any festival in the temple or that it is confined only to the worshippers in the temple. The poor leeding contemplated under the document does not have any connection with the temple or the festivals conducted therein. Therefore, the charity referred to in the document is unconnected with the temple and its affairs. Therefore, it is clear that the trust as created under the original document, Exhibit A-1, dated 8th April, 1897. is purely of a charitable nature. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the poor feeding is done in a place just in front of the temple it will make a purely charitable trust into a religious and charitable trust To make a haritable trust a religious trust as well, it must be shown that the object of the trust had some nexus or connection with the temple or its affairs or the worship or the conduct of the festivals therein. As already stated, the document of trust does not restrict the poor feeding either to the worshippers or to the persons who resort to the temple for worship. Nor is it restricted to any festival or religious function offered in the temple. The authorities below have, therefore, come to the right conclusion that the trus
